(0) Foreward

THE studies gathered in this book on the treatise De Oratione by the Pontic monk Evagrius (ca. 345-399)¹ originally appeared as individual research articles and to some extent were also distributed as such.²  They are preparatory studies for a projected new translation and commentary on the “153 Chapters on Prayer.”

This exceedingly rich text is in fact not easily accessible to the modern reader, particularly since [such a reader] is often all too eager to hear something really new and interesting, but is reluctant to take the time to truly experience it.  Experience [Er-fahren] means genuinely pushing [the self] into life, again and again inspecting a thing, and so attaining to a knowledge that arises solely out of inner, growing intimacy.

The six articles assembled here approach what Evagrius has to say on prayer from six different perspectives; at the same time they circumscribe it reflectively, also drawing together as far as possible all the remote and proximate texts that can help enlighten his often-veiled concepts.  Every reality we call “prayer” in fact has many faces, and is experienced differently at different stages of the spiritual life.  Finally, it is in any case not capable of being taught, but only of being experienced.

Prayer is a state of the intellect that acquires its state only through the light of the Blessed Trinity.³

Thus understood, prayer is a mysterious encounter with the triune God, a “state of the intellect” the meaning of which it behooves us to explore. For although it is by its nature an undeserved grace of the self-communicating God, prayer nevertheless has aspects concerning which it is possible to speak, and concerning which Evagrius has indeed spoken in unique fashion - not, however in a systematic way, even in his treatise “On Prayer”.

A few preliminary observations will provide for a better understanding of the following studies. Evagrius, as a theologically and philosophically well-educated Greek of the late fourth century, availed himself of the concepts of his day - yet always according to his own unique interpretation. Thus arises the general question of translation.  What, for example, is intended when the soul is described as “tripartite”?  How should one translate so central a concept as νοῦς [nous]?

In the background stands therefore the question of hermeneutics.  Evagrius’ anthropology and psychology are not that of the twentieth century.  Translation of concepts will not in itself suffice.  It is necessary for the modern person to enter into a world of alien concepts.  A noted psychiatrist once confided to the author (following the author’s lectures for the book on “Akedia”) his conviction that it must be conceded that the modern model of thought may not be the only one possible or “correct”; and that Evagrius’, for example, might be no less accurate.  It allows the human person quite obviously an understanding of the self, of his spirit/soul essence, in no sense inferior to the modern conception.  I wish to add personally that this existential orientation - if one first of all simply allows it to be what it is and then attempts to form concepts from within it - opens up dimensions that have been lost to modern humanity.

There still remains the problem of ancient conceptualizing.  How should one, for example, render the constantly recurring concept νοῦς [nous] ? Is the internationally-accepted translation “intellect” not deceptive? Would not a free rendering by more fitting? What exactly does Evagrius mean when he speaks of νοῦς  [nous]? Since the concept has an absolutely central role in his thought, and especially in his “spirituality”, we are offered here a few points at which to pause in order to better uderstand.

It should be established first of all that the Evagrian “intellect” is not identical to the modern “intellect”.  It is therefore not “capacity, ability through use of thinking to acquire knowledge; ability to think, to know; understanding, (Duden [German dictionary]). Intellectual, rational understanding of concepts is characterized as “dialectic” by Evagrius: its value for the spiritual life he judges very negatively.

Evagrius defines the intellect rather as “bearing the image of God” (εἰκών θεοῦ [eikōn theou]), thus referring to the essence-defining personal relationship (Gen 1.26, ff.) of the creation to its creator - the triune God of revelation.  The Evagrian intellect is therefore not understanding, but rather the place of creaturely personal-being.  As image of God the intellect is not only related to God, but also receptive of him - capax Dei.

Nevertheless is not by chance that Evagrius speaks here of the intellect, rather than, as other fathers do, of “spirit”.  For νοῦς is related to νοέω - to know, and in fact Evagrius defines the essence-completing personal relationship between creation and creator as [an act of] “knowing”.  Intellect (νοῦς) and knowledge (γνῶσις [gnosis] ) together illustrate at the same time the two coordinates of the Evagrian essence-view of created being.  “knowledge” nevertheless not, as was made clear above, as dialectic-intellectual grasping [Be-greifen]: rather as super-rational “beholding”. For, analogous to the material body, the intellect also possesses five spiritual senses that render this knowing possible.

Five spiritual senses has the intellect as well, through which it receives the substances proper to itself.  Vision presents before it nakedly intelligible things; hearing in contrast takes in the meaning-bearers (λόγοι [logoi]) [with which it is] concerned; the scent free of all admixture is enjoyed by [the sense of] smell; and the flavor that arises therefrom is imparted to taste [teilhaftig]; finally through touch [Gespür] the intellect receives certainty concerning the precise explication of the things received.4  

As is seen, Evagrius’ “intellect” is nothing less than our “understanding”.  It is much more a spiritual essence, provided with spiritual senses and ordered toward “knowledge”, that is reminiscent of Paul’s “inner person” that in each “is being renewed through knowledge according to the image of its creator”.  And in fact Evagrius preferentially organizes his spirituality in biblical-Pauline categories, through which it becomes clear that it is not here a question of a somehow mysticism of the “natural person”, but rather of one newly-created by grace.  If one sees this, then concepts such as “intellect” and “gnosis” acquire a completely different tone than they would have through transposition into different concepts.

At this point there are also two researchers and friends who have selflessly made their as yet unpublished works available, and to whom I must express my thanks: Miss Marie-Josèphe Rondeau for her collation of the Scholia on the Psalms and Mr. Paul Géhin for his manuscript of the Scholia on Ecclesiastes.  the reader will easily see from the annotations how much we have to thank these two texts for a better understanding of the Pontic monk.

Roveredo, the 11 of February, 1987

Feast of the Abbot Evagrios.  

 (1) Chapter_1

“IF anyone among you is in dire straits, let him pray; if anyone is of good cheer, let him chant psalms” ¹.  As in this  text of the Scriptures, often quoted by Evagrius, so also in the ancient monastic literature prayer and psalmody appear side-by-side as two independent entities.² Chanting psalms and praying are two, albeit related to one another yet in themselves very different,  acts.  Psalmody is not - or at least is not yet - prayer!

This distinction will come as a surprise to the modern reader, accustomed as he is to regard the chanting or saying of psalms as prayer.  The ancients would have been very familiar with this distinction.  It is most clearly reflected in the only two offices known in early Egyptian monasticism: Vespers and Vigils, at the beginning and end of the night.3  Both consist of twelve psalms each, each psalm followed by a “prayer”.4

During the performance of the psalms - in community this would be by one or at most three singers who remained standing while the others sat listening5 -  one would arise to pray, cast oneself praying to the ground, then arise again to pray standing in silence and with hands uplifted.6  The hermit performed his devotions alone, sitting down for the psalms only if he was sick or exhausted.7

From the different approaches to, respectively,  chanting psalms and praying certain things can be discerned regarding the “reasonable service” (logikh\ latrei/a)8 of the earliest monks.  Psalmody is by its very nature reading of the Word  that the Holy Spirit has inspired  As such it is performed audibly, as was customary for both public and private reading in antiquity.  This applied as well when the monk during the ordinary day or night memorized Scripture verses or “meditated” verses already learned. Thus the reading was also listened to, whether through one’s own voice or in community through the voice of the cantor. Since it was [thus]a question of a reading, the Psalms could also be listened to sitting down.

It is otherwise with prayer, which Evagrius designates o(mili/a nou= pro\j qeo/n, intimate converse of the intellect with God .9   Since this prayer always follows the psalmody, or respectively the meditation on or memorizing of scriptural texts,  it becomes clear that we are dealing here essentially with the human answer to the call of God heard in the scriptural text.  God’s Word and human words thus allow a dialogue between God and humanity to arise, the initiative for which remains with God.  Evagrius thus also speaks very fittingly concerning prayer of a sunomilei=n,10 conversing, carrying on a conversation with someone.  Since prayer is directed towards God it is conducted in reverent silence; not sitting but standing, accompanied by a prayerful prostration.

Against this contemporary background, which does not need to be further substantiated, Evagrius elaborated his teaching on psalmody and prayer.  It is at base nothing other than a deepening of that with which all monks of his day were surely entrusted.

PSALMODY

If psalmody is essentially listening to the Word of God whether this be at the two “little offices”11 or during the rest of the day and a good part of the night in “meditative” repetition of individual verses from the Psalms, it then becomes comprehensible why Evagrius, without further explanation, can spontaneously equate the Psalm with “spiritual teaching” (didaskali/a pneumatikh/):

“Take the psalm and strike the drum . . .”

Take spiritual teaching and  offer “mortificaton of the members on the earth”12

The psalm is by its very nature Scripture, Word of God; and this spiritual word is Spirit-effected instruction concerning God’s salvific action in His creation.13  It is thus appropriate, attentively (that is, principally with understanding) to receive this teaching, governed as it is by the Holy Sprit.

Pray becomingly and without perplexity, and “chant psalms with understanding”14 in a well-ordered way, and you will be like the “young eagles”15 that are borne aloft into the heights.16

What is meant by “chant psalms with understanding” is taught in the following “Sentences for a Virgin”:

Chant psalms with your heart, and do not move the tongue within your mouth!17

the “heart” is that symbolic “place” in the center of the human where his intellect, his personality is found, the place, as well, of his capacity for knowledge.18

In unison of tongue and heart to chant psalms “with understanding” thus means to chant psalms without distraction.

“In the presence of the angels will I praise thee”:

To chant psalms in the presence of the angels means to chant psalms without distraction (a)perispa/stwj), whereby our intellect (h(gemoniko/n) either is or is not solely impressed with the stamp of the realities intended by the psalm.19 Or perhaps as follows: He chants psalms in the presence of the angels who comes to know the meaning (du/namij) of the psalms.20

The psalmody “without distraction” required here is truly a great thing, greater than “praying without distraction”.21  Thus it is no accident that Evagrius considers psalmody, no less that prayer, to be a charisma that must be requested of God.22  Why then should it be so difficult to sing psalms “without distraction”?

Psalmody belongs to the “wisdom of multiplicity”,23  prayer in contrast is a prelude (prooi/mion) to immaterial and non-multiple knowledge.24

This “wisdom of multiplicity” of Paul, that Evagrius associates with Christ the God-Logos in his being and action ad extra,25 is that creative wisdom of God that is reflected back in manifold ways throughout all of created material reality.  Evagrius can also write of the words “chant psalms to the Lord who dwells in Zion”: “He chants psalms who has Christ within himself.”26

The multiplicity of creative wisdom that is also peculiar to the psalms possesses as well for the human spirit, bound as it is in space and time, something “distracting”.  It “multiplies” the intellect devoted to it.27  Nevertheless, this “distraction” can be either good or bad.  Bad, if it is the fruit of ignorance (a)/gnoia) caused by the passions.  It then separates the impure from “spiritual contemplation”,28  the Spirit-effected beholding of the divine meaning-bearers (lo/goi) hidden within all created things.  The “distraction of God”, in contrast, one of the synonyms for knowledge of God29 , separates the impure soul from things perceptible by the senses30 that “distract” the soul through their multiplicity.  Between these lies that “distraction” that material thing necessarily exert on the intellect that is incompletely purified from passions.  It is given by God and has the goal of leading [the intellect] to God.

I saw, says (the teacher) the things perceived by the senses that God gave humanity before the purification, so that they might “scatter/distract” them in them, jut as they “distract/scatter” the understanding (dia/noia) of human beings.  He calls their beauty transitory and not eternal.  For only the pure after the purification sees things perceived by the senses, without them scattering the intellect, rather urging it on to spiritual contemplation...31

What the pure thus sees is no longer the thing as it appears to the senses, but rather its divine meaning-bearer (lo/goj), that the God-Logos has imprinted within the whole of creation as traces of his activity.  “Natural science” (gnw=sij fusikh/) is not for Evagrius “physics” in the modern sense, but rather knowledge-vision of these divine meaning-bearers that all point back to their original maker32 and like “written characters” render visible His will, that is His love.33 Only the passions veil this “heavenly kingdom within us”,34 thus necessitating the purification.  A “receptacle of the psalm” - the expression in Ps 70,22 - thus [refers] solely to the pure Soul.35

The chanting of psalms, an attentive listening to the “spiritual teaching” contained in the psalm, is itself one of the best antidotes against the passions36 and particularly against wrath,37 that more than all the others “blinds” the intellect:38 that is, renders it incapable of the knowledge that is truly a[n act of] contemplation (qewri/a).

Demonic songs39 arouse our desires and trouble the soul through harmful fantasies.  “Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs,”40 in contrast, invite the soul constantly to remember the virtues, that they cool our boiling wrath and quench our desires.41

Purified from alienating passions, the intellect itself becomes a psaltery - that harp to whose strains David sang his spirit-inspired songs.

“Acknowledge the Lord with the zither, on the ten-stringed psaltery chant psalms to him:”

The zither means a ‘practical’ soul moved by the commandments of Christ.42  The psaltery means a pure intellect43 moved by spiritual knowledge.44

The theme is dear to Evagrius, and he repeats it over again:

“Awake, psaltery and zither:”

The symbol of the intellect is the psaltery, that of the soul is the zither.  The intellect is now “awakened”45 if it casts away ignorance; the soul if it casts away evil.  Soul is what I call the part of the (logos-gifted) soul subject to passion, that is wrath and desire.46

Freed from evil and ignorance the soul is now able to undertake its primordial, proper task: knowing.

On the psaltery I will solve my problem:”

He who is of good courage chants psalms.46a With the psaltery he “solves” the “riddle” (pro/blhma), by means of “good courage” (eu)qumia) he knows the [meaning of] the problem.  “Good courage” means the freedom from passion of the logos-gifted soul.47

As the keywords intellect, soul, passions (compulsions), purification, etc. point out, we find ourselves here in the realm of the human.  Psalmody is in fact the proper activity of human beings, as long as they find themselves [progressing] on their way from the assaults of the passions towards the purity of their created primordial state.

Just as it is appropriate for those “of good courage” to “chant psalms” (for it says “if any among you is of good courage, let him chant psalms”), so the singing of hymns [belongs to] those who behold the meaning-bearers (lo/goi) of (God’s) righteous deeds (dikaiw/mata).48 Therefore the chanting of psalms applies to human beings, but the singing of hymns to angels, or to those who have achieved a nearly- angelic state.  Thus the shepherds (keeping watch) beneath the open sky heard the angels not chanting psalms, but rather singing hymns and saying “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to those  with whom He is well-pleased.49

Thus “good courage” (eu)qumi/a) means the soul’s freedom from passions (compulsions), that arises from the commandments of God and true teaching, “hymn”, however, signifies means “praise” (doxologi/a) together with astonishment (e)/kplhcij) at the sight of what is accomplished by God.50

In the unison of tongue and heart, chanting psalms with understanding and without distraction signifies for Evagrius, as these texts teach, something other than simple repetition of sacred texts, even if it should be done with the required attentiveness.  It concerns something more! The psalm is for him above all else “spirit-inspired instruction” concerning the mysterious actions of God.  In [the psalm] is mirrored back the “manifold wisdom” of the creative God-Logos, whose hidden “meaning-bearers” can be known solely by the intellect purified from alienating passions.  This Spirit-inspired knowledge causes the intellect, like the ten-stringed harp of David, the psaltery, to ring out; and that melody that flows from it is Hymn-prayer.

However, one might perhaps object, does not the psalm also contain many texts that one must see as prayer, even as hymns? Is not human prayer here subordinated to a purely “intellectual” mysticism reaching out solely towards “knowledge”? The question is justified, and we will consider it in the last section of this chapter.  It is already anticipated here that in those places where Evagrius quotes prayer-formulae, he constantly draws from the Psalter!

PRAYER

Since in what follows we will speak often of prayer, we can restrict ourselves here to the aspects that distinguish it in a characteristic way from psalmody.  Psalmody, says Evagrius, pertains to the “manifold wisdom of God”.  This is reflected in “spiritual teaching”, primarily in the “book of creation”.  This is taught quite beautifully in the following apophthegm, attributed by Evagrius to the literally uneducated, but nonetheless graced with the gift of contemplation monk, Antony the Great

There once came to the righteous Antony one of the wise of his day who said: “How do you endure, Father, robbed as you are of the consolation of books?”.  He answered: “My book, O philosopher, is the nature of the things that have come into being, and it is always available if I wish to read the words (or meaning-bearers - lo/goi!) of God.51

To this “book of creation” are joined the Scriptures, that other incarnation of the Logos, and here especially the Psalter, truly a kind of Summa of the whole Old Testament, as Athanasius the Great demonstrated in his Letter to Marcellinus.  Chanting the psalms thus means listening attentively to every “word” (or meaning-bearer) that God directs to us.  Prayer in contrast is an answer to this [experience of] God speaking [to us].

From among the many “definitions” of prayer we have already quoted one of the most important that Evagrius has taken from Clement of Alexandria: h( proseuxh/ o(mili/a e)sti\ nou= pro\j qeo/n “Prayer is speaking of the intellect with God”.52  “Speaking” is only an incomplete rendering of the Greek  o(mili/a.  Like its Latin counterpart conversatio, homilia here means intimate interaction that includes both physical closeness52a and free, unmediated speech. That this unmediated speaking is an interactive relationship is taught later in the same chapter, where conversation (sunomilei=n) with God without any intermediary (mhdeno\j mesiteu/ontoj) is described.53

Behind this presentation of unmediated conversation between God and human beings lies, as Or 4 teaches, the great figure of Moses whose unique relationship with God is clearly depicted in the Scriptures.

“And the Lord spoke to Moses face to faces, as one speaks to his own friend;”54 and in the same direct way Moses also spoke to God.

An indispensable requirement for this intimate conversation between humankind and God from the human side is purification from every passion, since these alienate human beings from God, even in the form of passionate thoughts

If Moses was hindered in his attempt to approach the burning thornbush until he had taken the shoes from his feet,55 how then can you - you who yearn to see the One exalted above every sense-perception and every intellectual concept, and to become his partner in conversation (suno/miloj!) - how can you not detach from yourselves every passionate thought?56

But it is not merely every passionate thought that must be stripped away, for

Prayer is a state of the intellect that negates every earthly thought.57

indeed, every intellectual concept (no/hma) must finally [be stripped away] in so far as it also represents an (albeit ever-so-rarified) intermediary.  Moses in contrast was to approach with “naked feet”.

Prayer is a laying aside of (all) thoughts.58

This conversation with God should indeed be “without any intermediary;” “face to face,” as with Moses.  Prayer therefore means “to go immaterially unto the immaterial,”59 that is, without any images or concepts drawn from the material world.

From this it becomes clear what Evagrius means when he describes prayer in contrast to psalmody as “prelude to immaterial and non-multiform knowledge”.60 “Immaterial” because God does not belong to the material world, “non-multiform” because He, in contrast to creation which is determined by number and multiplicity, is in His very nature both one and three in a non-numerical way.61

The logical consequence of this radical renunciation of every concept of God evoked by the senses would be, so one might conclude, a way of speaking about God solely in abstract philosophical concepts.  In fact the opposite is the case! Evagrius is all too aware of the restrictiveness of abstract language and remains reserved with regard to any inconsiderate “theologizing”.61a Instead, he speaks, as the cited texts show, of the relationship between God and creation almost exclusively in images that the Scriptures provide him so richly.

It is, mutatis mutandis, the same as in the Old Testament: the more spiritualized the conception of God (namely with the prophets), the more recklessly one makes use of a massively anthropological language. Since the One referred to is fully “immaterial”, “shapeless”, “formless”, Evagrius can recklessly refer to Him using the most variegated imagery.  In contrast to the abstract concept, an image, a symbol, as he says himself, does not define, that is circumscribe, the intended reality: much more, rather, does it allow [the reality] to shine forth solely to the spiritual eyes, permitting to the divine epiphany its fitting uncircumscribed space for freer communication of itself.

PSALMODY AND PRAYER

The texts quoted and commented thusfar make it possible to better understand both the characteristic differences between psalmody and prayer, and their inner relationship to each other. Evagrius presents them both as divine charism; both have to do, albeit in different ways, with the knowledge of God.

In virtue of their form and content the psalms belong to the world of gnw=sij fusikh/, that is knowledge of the multiform creative wisdom of God that is reflected back in extant things just as in the Spirit-inspired words of Scripture.  The “spiritual teaching” flowing out from both, however, reveals God as it were indirectly; that is, through the mediation of the meaning-bearers (lo/goi) hidden within things and the words of Scripture, that the one chanting the psalms is drawn to perceive (know) through reflection on the significance (shmaino/menon) or power (du/namij) of the psalms. It should be noted that this knowledge is as it were still pre-personal, since it is possible only through the help of an intellectual mediator.  It is ordered towards symbols of the Divinity, not towards Divinity Itself.

It is the same with the divine praise that is so richly contained in the psalms. They are “drawn from creation” and are thus indirect (mediated).  This applies as well to the angelic hymnody and that of those human beings who thanks to their purity have arrived at a nearly-angelic state.  For this marvelous praise is called forth through their vision of the wonderful saving deeds of God. Even if it is indeed the Works of God (dikaiw/mata) that occasion the marveling and the praise, they all point back to their author.

It is otherwise with prayer in that specific sense that Evagrius here produces from that many-layered concept.  Prayer is “speaking with God”, even “dialogue without any intermediary”, thus personal-unmediated, as we would say.  Even the subtlest thoughts and concepts must, insofar as they are mediators, be transcended.

Prayer, then, is pure presence of one to the other, sunousi/a says Evagrius, abiding together.62 As such prayer is “prelude” to the immaterial knowledge of the immaterial God .  It is itself beholding (qewri/a) of that which no eye can see.  Seen even more narrowly, this “divine Knowledge” in prayer is itself already “essential” (ou)siw/dhj),63 that is, contacting the personal being of God, without the mediation of any created thing.

Correspondingly, the divine praise does not draw any more deeply than psalmody, nor even the English “hymn”, from the things that are created: rather in an astonishing way “from God Himself” - e)x au)tou= au)to\n a)numnei=.  The intermediary with God is now God Himself.  Praising God from [within] God, this is prayer in its highest consummation.  We shall see how this is possible^.64

Nevertheless, it is already clear here that for Evagrius “prayer” is an increasingly dizzying process of ever deepening interiority.

“My prayer will return back to my breast:”
“Breast” (xo/lpoj) he here calls Intellect.65

Prayer turns back to the “breast”, that is the intellect, the heart,66 in the innermost depths of the person, his personal core, where he is, according to his nature, nothing but openness to God, capax Dei - pure receptivity to God, ei)kw\n qeou= - image of God, that only truly is [comes to be] if it encounters its archetype.

First of all, if one comes to appreciate the essential difference between psalmody and prayer, the character and purpose of Evagrius’ Commentary on the Psalms, so often quoted here and in what follows, becomes comprehensible. The more or less brief scholies [marginal annotations] on particular psalm-verses very obviously do not attempt an aid to better “pray” the psalms (in the usual sense of the word), as the modern reader would spontaneously expect. Evagrius is much more concerned, by means of an allegorical exegesis that follows fixed rules, to draw forth the hidden meanings (shmaino/menon) of the Psalms and to unlock their symbols. Evagrius is solely concerned to elaborate the psalm as “spiritual teaching”.

Since the psalm belongs according to its contents (the action of God in creation and salvation history) to “the knowledge of nature (gnw=sij fusikh/), the evagrian exegesis is accordingly focused almost completely on sayings concerning the “mystery of the created”.  Ethics (praktikh/) comes only to the fore when it is very closely tied to the “knowledge of (the) nature” of created things.  Sayings about God (qeologikh/), or rather our existence in Him are even rarer.  The Scholies (marginal annotations) on the Psalms closely resemble the Kephalia Gnostica, the expressed theme of which is also the gnw=sij fusikh/.67

The psalm is therefore for Evagrius primarily not prayer, and indeed to such an extent that he can designate a verse like Ps 37,22 not as prayer, as we would, but rather as “prelude” (prooi/mion) to prayer:

A fitting prelude to prayer is this:

“Leave me not, O lord,
my God, stand not far from me,
See to my assistance,
Lord of my salvation,”

for it contains within it the Blessed Trinity.68

It is clear that “prayer” is to be understood here in a specific sense, namely as synonym for Contemplation.”  In addition, this threefold appeal to God is therefore a prelude, not of itself already “prayer”.  This example teaches us something else, as well.  That is, that all the petition, pleading, etc. of the Psalter leads on to (contemplative) prayer, and precisely there has its [true] place.  Thus it should come as no surprise that the examples that Evagrius offers of formulated prayer are invariably short verses from the Psalms.69 It is a question of texts that the modern reader would consider as “prayers”.  Evagrius divides them according to 1 Tim. 2,1 in three categories:70

A supplication (de/hsij) is a conversation (o(mili/a) of the Intellect with God with pleading, concerning help, supplication or goods.71

A vow (eu)ch/) is a freely-offered promise of goods.72

An intercession (e)/nteuxij) is an appeal (para/klhsij) to God by someone advanced for the salvation of another.73

There are of course numerous examples of these three forms of prayer in the Psalms, and Evagrius, like all the monastic fathers, draws spontaneously from them if he wishes to present a model of formulated prayer.  This spontaneity is the fruit of an ongoing meditative reading of the Psalms.  But this is not prayer in its highest sense.  For prayer, indeed, is “a state of the intellect that destroys all earthly thinking,”74 and “comes into being solely through the light of the Blessed Trinity,”75 as is stated prior to the above-quoted definitions.

It retrospect it now becomes clearer what psalmody signifies for Evagrius the mystic.  It is essentially reading of the spirit-inspired Word of God and attentive listening to its spiritual teaching.  This occurs first of all during the two sole offices known to the early desert fathers: Vespers and Vigils, each with its twelve psalms.  After each psalm followed a “prayer” in which the one praying answered the appeal of God he had heard in the text. During the remainder of the day, including also a good part of the night, the monk expanded the treasury of his inner reflections through memorization (a)posthqi/zein) of scriptural texts,76 or rather he “meditated” individual verses from the Psalms: in other words, he repeated to himself, softly and contemplatively, things he had already learned and meditated on their inner meaning.77 These meditated sacred texts (thus) also found in personal prayer an answer to their originator.

In the struggle against tempting thoughts the monk ultimately reaches back into the rich arsenal of the Psalter for requests, intercessions, praise, etc., in order to put a stop to the influences of the Adversary.  Evagrius dedicated an extensive work to this “contradiction” (“anti-speech”), his great “Antirrhetikos”, in which the Psalms occupy the greatest space.  As the examples teach, it has there to do with (in part) short ejaculatory prayers that he additionally [ in addition to ongoing meditation?] applies freely according to circumstances.  For what can comfort the afflicted soul more than the words of the psalmist?

When we strike at the demon of acedia, then we separate the soul with tears into two parts, one of which comforts while the other is comforted; for we have ourselves seen good hope, and accompany in song the words of holy David: “why are you afflicted my soul, and why do you confuse me? Hope in God, for I wish to praise him, my instructor and my God.”78

Psalm and prayer, thus considered, are in no sense in opposition; and it is not a question of choosing between them!  They are much more, just like the indirect and direct knowledge of God reflected in them, inseparably united to one another.

Among the multiplicity of paths there are three paths of redemption, all having in common that they destroy sin.

These three salvific paths are, as always with Evagrius, practice of the evangelical commands (praktikh/), the knowledge of God mediated by created nature (gnw=sih fusikh/), and the unmediated knowledge of God in contemplation (qewretikh/).

Two of them are alike in that they free from the passions;

intended are praktike and physike, since the battle of the former does not solely win freedom from these; also [necessary is] the knowledge of causes and conditions of these entanglements.79

The uniqueness of the third is that it becomes the cause of glorification (doxologi/a).  This “doxology” follows the first (way, that is vision of God); psalmody [follows] the second (that is, knowledge of created nature] and exaltation the third (that is, practical askesis).80

The spiritual life as ascent to God begins with the practical exercise of the evangelical commands, the virtues.  These “elevate” [“exalt”] the soul,81 since freedom from the passions, the fruit of the praktike, lifts it up as if on wings into the high regions of knowledge.82 In the same way the pure intellect,83 through the knowledge of God, itself offers [in sacrifice to God] a u(/ywsij pneumatikh/.

A spiritual exaltation is the thanksgiving of the pure intellect for the good things that have come to it.84

The intellect is “elevated” to the knowledge of God above all in the mirror of his creation.  The medium and expression of this knowledge is psalmody. From it proceeds the unmediated-personal encounter with God Himself that comes to pass, according to Evagrius, in the “state of prayer”. For those so graced, this then becomes the cause of awe-filled praise [glorification] (doxologi/a).

CHAPTER TWO:  “Pray Without Ceasing”1

[29] The only goal of the monk and the consummation of the heart reaches for constant and uninterrupted persistence in prayer.2

Insofar as the monk is nothing other than a Christian, this is also true for all who bear the name of Christ, whether dwelling in the “world” or in the solitude of the desert.  For the apostle urges all Christians to “pray without ceasing.”3

But how is this possible?  All depends on what one means by “prayer.” For this concept can, like any other, have various meanings.  In the prologue to his treatise “On Prayer” Evagrius makes the basic distinction between two methods (tro/poi) of prayer.  The “practical”, active method (praktiko\j tro/poj), that pertains to the realm of quantity (poso/thj) stands in contrast to the contemplative method (qewrhtiko\j tro/poj), concerned with quality (poio/thj). Thus two methods, as inseparably bound together as letter and spirit and yet of different value.  The first has no meaning (nou=j) without the second.

In what follows our concern will not be prayer as contemplation (qewri/a), that Evagrius chiefly describes as a “state of the intellect (kata/stasij nou=).”4  For “ceaseless prayer” has chiefly to do with quantity, and thus belongs to the realm of “practical methods of prayer.” Since the Praktike is the indispensable preliminary step towards theoretike or gnostike, and thus the beholding of knowledge of God, it is not unimportant to how the ancients comported themselves with regard to the “practicality” of continuous prayer prior to their being ennobled through God’s grace of vision.

The desert fathers were in deed and undertakings biblical “literalists” in the best sense of the word.  They thus took 1 Thes 5,17 literally, and not just as a mere recommendation.

It was not commanded of us that we should continuously work, keep vigil, or fast.  But we were required to “pray without ceasing”.5

The justification for this law (nenomoqe/thtai) seems so Evagrian at first glance, namely that “the intellect is naturally ordered towards prayer”, the fact nevertheless remains that the pontic monk here, as so often [in his writings] simply reflects back the common opinion that since Antony the Great, who also established principles of praxis, was well-established.  Thus we read in his Vita:

He prayed constantly, since he had learned that one must pray for himself alone “without ceasing”.6

But how is it possible to concretely fulfill this command?  It is well-known that the desert fathers jealously hid their way of life (politei/a) from every indiscreet view, in order not to lose the fruits [of their way of life], that can only ripen in hiding, protected from the all-destroying “vainglory”.

Seal the sweet savor of your (ascetic) efforts with silence, so that it may not be stolen through your loose tongue by vainglory!7

Prayer, not only as contemplation, but also as exercise belongs without doubt to these efforts; indeed it reveals their vital center.8  One would thus search in vain in the most ancient monastic writings for prescriptions of an easy and reliable “method”, as one finds later in the Byzantine hesychasts of the middle ages.  One need only recall the circumspection, indeed the mystery, surrounding John Cassian’s transmission of [the practice of] constant prayer!9 Thus we will generally catch only a glimpse from side roads of the first monks’ living practice of “ever-enduring prayer.”

When Evagrius arrived in Egypt around 383 and after a two-year residence in the Nitrian desert established himself for the rest of his life in the Cells, he found there a tradition more than a century old, rich in experience, that he as docile disciple not only made his own, but which also found in him one of is most articulate spokesmen.  He eagerly quotes Antony “the first fruits of the anchorites”10 His life by Athanasius was entrusted to him, as also the exercise of ever-enduring prayer.  Among others two outstanding monastic fathers transmitted to him directly this ascetic and spiritual tradition: Macarius the Great, and his namesake [Macarius the] Alexandrian.11

Concerning Macarius the Great we are informed by Palladius - who for nine years was a pupil and close confidant of Evagrius, and who is thoroughly imbued with his spirituality - that it was said of him that he was ceaselessly (a)dialei/ptwj) in ecstasy, and had spent more time with God than under Heaven”.12 Macarius was without doubt a man of prayer in the highest sense of the word, a “contemplative” (qewrhtiko/j) according to Evagrian terminology. It is thus not unimportant to know that Evagrius had him to thank for essential insights into the spiritual life.

Macarius the Alexandrian had made a name for himself through his severe asceticism.  He was the priest of the Cells,13 and thereby Evagrius’ immediate superior, whom he had to thank for the essentials of his practical knowledge of monastic life.  Palladius reports that Macarius daily offered 100 prayers,14 and it is certainly no accident that Evagrius did the same.15

But how was this possible? For the monks also worked constantly with their hands, (aside from the Euchites and those brothers who came close to this error),16 in order to earn their living and also to be able to offer alms.  It requires in fact only a small recalculation to make clear what these 100 prayers per day meant.  If one concedes to these ascetics four hours of sleep per day,17 then monks like Macarius and Evagrius offered during the twenty hours of the day (and night) apart from the two “little hours” (vespers and Vigil), each with their twelve psalms and the corresponding prayers, it comes to something like [offering] a prayer every ten minutes! That this was in fact the usual practice is taught in the first apophthegm of Antony:

The holy Antony sat once (in his kellion) in the desert, afflicted with acedia and in great darkness of thoughts, and he spoke to God “Lord, I desire salvation, but my thoughts do not allow it.  What should I do in my distress? How can I be saved? Soon thereafter he arose and went outside. There he saw one like himself.  He sat and worked, then he stood up from his work and prayed; he sat down again and wove his rope, then he stood up again to pray.  But it was an angel of the Lord, sent to help Antony find his way and to bestow on him certainty.  And he heard the angel say: “Act thus and you will be saved!” He heard all of this and was full of joy and consolation; and in acting thus he was saved.18

The exercise - already attested in Antony[‘s time] - daily to recite only twelve psalms and to dedicate the rest of the day to unceasing prayer,19 endured for a long time. We encounter it now and then in the Apophthegmata, if only usually in passing, since it was a question of a common usage that required no further explanation.  John Cassian made this tradition known in the West in the fifth century; in the sixth century it is attested in Palestine by the recluses of Gaza, Barsanuphios and John.  A very richly informative letter of John “the Prophet” deserves to be read carefully as a true witness to the oldest tradition:

A question of the same to the same father:

“Since in the lives of the fathers it stands written that one said 100 prayer, another so-and-so many: should we also in praying have a certain quota, or not? And how should we say the prayer, in an extended fashion? Or should one pray the Our Father and sit down again to manual labor?  Furthermore, what should one do at work? Similarly regarding Vespers and Vigils; how should one who lives alone conduct himself?  And should one say the hours and sing Odes or hymns?”

The answer (of John the Prophet):

“The hours and odes are ecclesiastical traditions, and the are good from the perspective of the unity of the whole people.  Similarly in communities for the sake of unity among many wills.  those of Skete, nevertheless, neither have hours nor do they pray odes; rather solitary, they (occupy themselves with) manual labor, meditation, and prayers at short intervals.

If you thus rise for prayer, you should ask to be redeemed and freed from the old man;20 or you should pray the Our Father, or you should do both together:21 then sit down to manual labor.

With regard to extending the prayers: if you stand (in prayer) or “pray without ceasing” in accordance with the Apostle, then you do not need to extend the prayer when you stand.  For your intellect is at prayer all day long.

When you sit down to manual labor, then you should memorize or say psalms.  At the end of each psalm you should pray while seated, “O God, have mercy on me, needy [as I am]!”22  When you are assailed by thoughts, then add “O God, you see my affliction, come to my aid!”.23

When you have made three rows of the mat, then stand for prayer, and when you bend the knee, and when you likewise arise again to pray, say the same prayer.

With regard to Vespers, those of Skete say twelve psalms, and the end of each they say [*anstelle] the doxology “Alleluia” and say a prayer.  It is the same at night: twelve psalms, and after the psalms they sit down to manual labor.

If anyone wishes, he may memorize; another can investigate his own thoughts, or (read) the lives of the Fathers.  The one who reads says five or eight pages and performs manual labor.  The one who chants psalms or memorizes must chant psalms with the lips as long as no one is near him, and he should take care that no one notices what he is doing”.24

This texts contains an abundance of concrete recommendations that should be carefully gathered.  Here we will consolidate only that which pertains to “ceaseless prayer”.  This brother living in solitude had asked the [spiritual] father six questions:

1. The quantity, that is the number of prayers.

2. The length of individual prayers

3. The formula to use

4. Manual labor and prayer

5. Vespers and Vigils

6. Hours, odes, and hymns

John the Prophet answered comprehensively with expressed reference to the ancient practice of Skete, that was evidently still had full validity, and which he faithfully describes in detail.  Leaving aside the two psalmic offices and the question (of a later date) concerning hymns and odes, John the Prophet summarizes the program of the hermit in three points:

1. Manual labor (e)rgo/xeiron)

2. Meditation (mele/th)

3. Prayer at brief intervals (kat’ o)li/gon eu)xh/).

John places manual labor at the top, since this occupies the monks’ whole day as well as a good part of the night. The underlying question is: how can one combine manual labor and prayer?  John distinguishes [between] two [different] methods of prayer:

1. Standing, at intervals after completing three rows of the mat on which the questioner works: a spontaneous prayer of biblical inspiration or the Lord’s Prayer, or both together. Thus John provides an answer to the question of a specific quantity [of prayers] .25 According to him there is none. More specifically, the quantity is an individual matter and must be adapted to the form and rhythm of the work. It is the same with the prayer [itself]. Here, too, there is no formalism, although Barsanuphios clearly gives preference to the Lord’s Prayer in an[other] answer to the same monk,26 whether recited fully or in portions according to circumstances;27 being as it is the prayer par excellence of both the monks28 and all Christians.

John presupposes for these prayers, said standing, the same ritual provided by John Cassian for the offices: standing, genuflection, arising again.29   All of this relatively brief, since these prayers said standing are what belongs to “constant prayer”, that thus “the intellect is at prayer throughout the day.”  Cassian also provides the reason for the brevity of the prayer: a prayer too protracted is constantly in danger of becoming an offering of distraction - a reason cited also by Augustine, who was also well-acquainted with Egyptian practice.30

2. Sitting, during manual labor, at the end of memorizing (a)posthqi/zein) a scriptural text or reciting one from memory. Against the “thoughts” (logismoi/) John recommended short invocations, just as Evagrius does.31 This “antirrhetic” method is traditional, and already attested by Antony and Macarius, to name only two prominent examples.32

Psalmody is not yet prayer: this was said in the preceding chapter. Prayer follows psalmody at intervals, whether that of the two offices of Vespers and Vigils, or of the memorizing during, respectively, the day or night. Of what sort were these prayers? Since it is here a question of something unique to the individual, the answer must of necessity remain very general.  Nevertheless, as the examples found in Evagrius, John Cassian, and John of Gaza teach, these “prayers” were verses from the psalms!

Evagrius quotes in Or 97 as example of an antirrhetic prayer Ps 22.4: “I fear no evil for you are with me!” Elsewhere he quotes other psalm verses,33 and thus knows a variety of “prayers”; while Cassian praises the admirable power in all circumstances of the psalm verse 69.2: “O God, come to my help, Lord hasten to help me.34

John of Gaza also quotes, in addition to the Lord’s Prayer, verses from the psalms that he in characteristic fashion modifies.  This Evagrius does, too; even going so far as to combine the verses, composing a small prayer that is “Christianized” by a slight modification:

“Lord Christ
Power of my salvation,
incline your ear,
hasten to save me!
become for me a protecting God
and a place of refuge
in order to redeem me!”35

As these few examples make clear, psalmody is in itself recitation of the inspired Word of God, and thus not yet of itself prayer.  It nevertheless becomes, through the many expressions of prayer it contains a school of prayer.  The one praying finds in them, as Athanasius (Letter to Marcellinus) elaborates, an endless wealth of images, concepts and fixed formulas that he can without hesitation make his own.  As we saw, he does this in a very personal way.  Namely, he does this as a Christian. For he finds in them not only an inexhaustible “spiritual teaching” concerning the saving acts of God in creation and history, and this means teaching concerning the “knowledge of Christ” (gnw=sij Xristou=); but he also finds Christ in and through everything: in part as one speaking; in part as the one addressed by the one praying in the Old Testament prayer, namely David, the Spirit-inspired psalmist. The “knowledge of Christ” is the key to every verse of the Old Testament, most particularly the Psalter.

It thus becomes clear that the recitation, memorization, or meditative repetition (mele/th) of the psalms finally has no goal other than “prayer”. Listening to God’s Word and humankind answering back thus intertwine in an increasingly intimate dialogue between creator and creation.  “Prayer”, Evagrius does say, “is a dialogue (o(mili/a - sunomilei=n) ofthe intellect with God”.36

The time required for this meditation and transformation of text into personal prayer is often much shorter than that needed to complete three rows of a mat.  The monk therefore remains seated. These innumerable, small “javelin [lit. ‘thrown’] prayers”, as Augustine calls them represent that “ceaseless prayer” (a)dia/leiptoj proseuxh/) of 1 Thes 5,17 that John of Gaza expressly mentions in addition to the constantly-offered prayers of the personal “Rule” (kanw/n).

Looking back once more it would seem that several elements flow together towards God in a single elan:

- The psalmody of the two “little offices”, Vespers and Vigil, each with its twelve psalms and accompanying “prayers” and [appropriate] gestures of adoration.  Without this personal prayer, with which the monk concludes each individual psalm, [thus] christianizing and making it his own, the recitation of the Psalms would lose much of its purpose.  The brevity of the psalmic offices and their restriction to two is best explained by the desire to achieve as much scope as possible for “prayer”.

- The personal “rule” of the monk, completely adapted to the form and rhythm of his manual labor and consisting of short prayers, offered while standing. The purpose of these exercises is clear: work is not its own justification, rather it provides a livelihood and facilitates love of neighbor.  As everyone knows, doing possesses its own inner “dynamic” which all too easily tends to become independent. Through regular prayer the monk constantly frees himself from this pressure and reorients himself toward the One Who is to be thanked for everything.

- The constant “meditation” on God’s word, not interrupted by manual labor, but rather constantly accompanying [it] and frequently breaking out anew in verbalized “prayer”.  Here, as well, the purpose is easy to see.  Even “meditation”, consideration of the hidden meaning-bearers in the sacred text can easily make itself independent.  It then becomes a curious, restless searching for things that cannot be forced, bus must rather be bestowed. In “prayer” the monk constantly turns back to the One Whom he finally is seeking. For also in meditation, it is a question not of acquiring new information, but solely of encounter with God.

It is significant that even “intellectual” work appears not to hinder any of these three forms of prayer,37 as the example of Evagrius teaches.  The prerequisite is first of all that this intellectual work is in virtue of its whole orientation simply a particular form of “meditating”, and that its inner dynamic is directed toward prayer as contemplation (qewri/a) - that super-rational unmediated-personal knowledge of God that Evagrius designates gnw=sij in the case of the “mystics” John and Paul.

At first glance the sort of discipline envisioned by John of Gaza and evidently practiced from of old in Skete would seem to be achievable only in the strictest solitude. Indeed, it is proper to the monk who lives alone (kata\ mo/naj).  Nevertheless, at the end of his letter John seems to anticipate the presence (if not regular at least possible) of other brothers; and even Evagrius, who likewise writes for anchorites, does not exclude the presence of other monks at prayer.38

But here the question presents itself how it is possible to protect the very personal character of prayer in the presence of others from that appearance of ostentation widely-known to be so despised by the desert fathers? For one chants psalms, that is to say memorizes and meditates aloud, as John clearly establishes at the end of his letter. His admonition to take care in the presence of others not to be noticed applies, as Evagrius and Cassian noted, to personal prayer. One chants psalms out loud, but prays in silence.

With tears appeal nightly to the Lord
and no one will become aware that you pray,
and you will find grace.39

Three texts from the Ethiopian tradition afford us a lovely view into this completely hidden exercise of silent prayer.

Abba James said: I once went to Beleos to Abba Isidore, the one from Nezare, and found him writing, sitting in his lodging.  I remained a little while with him and observed him, how he often lifted his eyes to heaven without moving his lips and one could not hear his voice. I asked him: “What are you doing, my father?” He answered me: “Do you not know what I am doing?” “Not at all, Abba,” I said. He answered me: “If you do not know that, James, then you have not been a monk for a single day. See, this is what I say: “Jesus, have mercy on me! Jesus, help me! I praise you, my Lord!”40

It is not easy to date this text that, like the two others, presupposes the existence of a single, otherwise very beautiful and rich formula of the Jesus Prayer. However the lesson of the silent “prayer of the heart” is well-attested.

The brothers reported the following: We once went to the Elders and after we had, according to custom, prayed and greeted one another, we sat down. After the conversation, since we wished to leave, we asked that a prayer be said.  Then the Elder said to us “What, have you not prayed?” And we answered him, “At our arrival, abba, a prayer was said, and we have conversed since then.” Then the elder said “Excuse me brothers, but one of the brothers who sat with us and conversed with us prayed (in the meantime) 103 prayers.” And as he said this they offered a prayer and dismissed us.”41

It is not difficult to discover a “method” behind these texts that is universally current, yet without being expressly formulated.  Its purpose is obviously to fix the intellect on the single “thoughts of God” (qeou= no/hma).42 It is only conceivable, one might say only bearable, in a spiritual climate in which “prayer”, as John Cassian says in the texts quoted in the introduction [to this chapter], is the highest goal of the monastic life.  However, [this is] prayer no longer understood as a human exercise - even if it is Without ceasing” - but rather prayer as “state of the intellect”, as Evagrius expressed it.  John of Gaza also hints at this when he answered: No fixed quantity, “for the whole day long your intellect is at prayer”.43

The goal of the “active mode of prayer” is, as Evagrius teaches, nothing other than the [act of] “beholding” (qewri/a) in ceaseless, intimate dialogue with God “without any intermediary,”44 even without the mediation of any intellectual concept, however sublime.45

The sole “mediator” between God and humankind is God Himself,46 that is the Son and the Holy Spirit, who open for us the access to the Father, Origin and Destiny of all. Nevertheless, no human being is able to obtain this access for himself. “Contemplation” is a pure gift from God.47

The [monks of] Skete say:”... As you now see me, thus have I done all my life: a little manual labor, a little meditation, a little prayer, and so as as I am able, to keep myself uncontaminated by thoughts, resisting the thoughts that press in [on me]. And thus came over me the spirit of contemplation (to\ th=j qewri/aj pneu=ma) without my being aware of it, and without knowing that others engaged in the same exercises”.48

Prayer as, finally, wordless “vision of God” is in no sense pure utopian, intellectual speculation; as that simple peasant taught who answered the sainted Cur‚ of Ars:

“I gaze upon the good God, and the good God gazes upon me.”49

This silent, steadfast “beholding” is possible because the intellect, “of its nature made in order to pray”,50 “finds in prayer the exercise of that activity proper to it.”51 since “prayer is the activity that corresponds to the dignity of the intellect (as image of God), in other words, its best and most authentic practice.”52

A human being is most fully himself only when he prays, that is to say when the likeness stands in most complete harmony with its original image. To move oneself toward this goal, striving for it with all one’s powers is “natural” to human beings, since it corresponds to their true nature.  “Continuous prayer” is a step along this path.  It is the quintessence of the “active mode of prayer.”

Egypt is the land of monasticism’s origin, where there still remain in unbroken vitality the monasteries founded by Antony, Makarios, and others. Despite it’s geographically and historically conditioned unique features, Egyptian monasticism has always been looked upon as the measure of all later developments, as John of Gaza teaches very beautifully.

Egypt is also the land of origin of that contemplatively-oriented spirituality that found such a living witness in the writings of Evagrius, and found later it’s marked elaboration in the writings of the Byzantine hesychasts. The oldest epigraphic witness to the so-called “Jesus-prayer” are found, significantly, in Egypt, specifically in the Cells.53 The later Coptic tradition has retained an abundance of excellent texts in which Evagrius is acknowledged an important role as guarantor of the most ancient tradition.54 As these pages make clear the spirituality of “constant prayer” that underlies the continual (recitation of the) Jesus Prayer is even older [that Evagrius].  The tradition leads back, perhaps not erroneously, to Antony the Great himself.

xcxxcxxc  F ” “ This Webpage was created for a workshop held at Saint Andrew's Abbey, Valyermo, California in 2003....x....  ’ “”.